The Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 is the fifth in the company's industry-changing video and stills 'hybrid' lineup. With its 20MP Four Thirds sensor and deep video-centric feature set, it looks likely to pick up where the GH4 left off as a favorite of indie filmmakers and photographers whose interests venture into the realm of motion picture work.

The GH5's feature set moves on suitably far from its predecessor that the company says the GH4 will remain in its lineup as a lower-cost option for users who don't need the additional capability that the GH5 brings.

For many users, the addition of in-body stabilization and 4K video without cropping might be enough to make the camera a worthwhile upgrade, but Panasonic has revised and improved almost every aspect of the camera's behavior and performance.

Key Features

20MP Four Thirds sensor (no OLPF)

5-axis in-body image stabilization system with 'Dual IS 2' support

All 4K footage taken using full width of sensor (oversampled from 5.1K footage)

Two pre-announced firmware updates

It's worth noting that Panasonic already has two firmware updates planned for the camera, one expected around April, which will bring 10-bit 4:2:2 1080p capture, and a second at some point during the summer.

The summer firmware update promises some very big improvements, including DCI/UHD 4K 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 400Mbps, and 1080/60p 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 200Mbps, both using All-Intra compression. Support for anamorphic 4K capture will also be added at that point.

With attachments such as the DMW-XLR1 accessory microphone unit, the GH5 promises to be a great tool for video enthusiasts and pros.

4K 60p video

The eye-catching feature on the GH5 is its ability to shoot 4K footage at up to 59.94p and 48p (or 50p if you're shooting for PAL). Footage is oversampled from 5.1K, thanks to full sensor readout, meaning sharp footage that takes advantage of the full size of the sensor. Internal recording will be limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 IPB encoding at up to 150Mbps but with higher quality available if an external recorder is used. 4K video is shot using the full width of the sensor and has no time restrictions.

At lower frame rates, the camera can capture 10-bit, 4:2:2 footage internally: the kind of quality you needed an external recorder to capture from the GH4.

Advanced DFD

The GH5 features the latest iteration of Panasonic's Depth From Defocus autofocus system, which uses pairs of images and an understanding of a lens's out-of-focus rendering to create a depth map of the scene, to speed up focusing. The latest version samples the scene more often and builds up a higher-resolution depth map, for faster, more decisive focus.

The GH5 also gains a more advanced algorithm for interpreting movement within the scene, to reduce the risk of the camera getting confused by movement as it builds its depth map. This, combined with faster sensor readout, should mean faster and more accurate autofocus. Further to this, Panasonic has added more AF configuration options to help the camera understand subject movement and the correct response to it.

Still image processing

Panasonic is keen to stress the GH5 is intended for stills as well as video. The greater processing power of the GH5 allows the camera to consider a wider area of the image when calculating the color values from each pixel. Panasonic says this makes it possible to extract greater JPEG resolution from the captured image.

The GH5's greater processing power also allows more sophisticated sharpening, promising reduced over-shoot that can cause unnatural-looking 'halos' on high-contrast edges.

Updated noise reduction is also supposed to be better at distinguishing between noise and detail, meaning that detail is better preserved during the noise reduction process.

'6K' Photo and advanced video-derived shooting modes

Also on the stills side of things, the GH5 offers higher resolution versions of its video-derived stills features such as 4K Photo, Post Focus and Focus Stacking. The GH5 uses its higher pixel count sensor and more powerful processor to add '6K Photo' modes at up to 30 fps, in addition to 4K Photo at up to 60 fps. As before, there are various ways of triggering the mode to ensure you have a short video clip from which you can extract exactly the moment you wanted to capture.

However, don't go assuming that '6K Photo' mode is taking images from an area of the sensor 6000 pixels across: it isn't. Instead it's capturing images with the roughly the same number of pixels as a very widescreen 6000 x 3000 video clip would have. It's not the most misleading marketing statement we've ever seen, but be aware that 6K may not mean quite what you might expect.

Availability

The Panasonic GH5 will be available in late March for $1999 (body only).

I know this may be just me, but I think image quality is the most important factor to a camera. This is why I shoot only RAW. I will sacrifice convenience for image quality. I mean just look at how much sharper the video is on the a6500. The image is gorgeous. While the Panasonic is average 4K. The A6500 is even cheaper and has a super 35 sensor too. This has some nice features that the a6500 diesnt have, but most of them are ergonomics. Except fro the 4K 60p and 10 bit.

The key question here is whether the 6500 is really sharper, or just more aggressively sharpened? The nature of the artifacts that the 6500 exhibits when confronted with inputs just above the sensor's cutoff frequency strongly suggests the latter (and in fact the Sonys have a long and sordid track record in that regard).

Besides, if imaging quality is the *most* important factor then why are you messing with these little toys at all? Arri/Red/etc have just the cameras for you!

If you're looking at the 6500 or GH5 at all then that means that your single most important constraint is cost, and you're trying to optimize other attributes within your budget.

Don't get me wrong, the 6500 is a terrific camera (and I would personally choose it right now, mostly based on cost) but let's be realistic all the same.

The a6500 is sharper due to the fact that the video is supersampled. The camera takes a 16:9 crop of the full 24 MP sensor (6000 x 3376), and downscales that to UHD (3840 x 2160). This leads to superior sharpness over cameras that don't do any of this supersampling business. That's why the Canon C100 has a UHD sensor, but can only record Full HD as its max resolution.

The GH5 also supersamples, though from a lower starting point. Going from 6000 x 3376 as opposed to 5100 x whatever does not make a massive difference (and I say this as a professional imaging person).

A6500 is abit sharper and focuses better than GH5, but it does overheat (still it should be much better than A6300). Still many people rent something like 5D mk III. I would like to see how much does the overheating alone affect the IQ.

Yes, the 6500 video is sharper, but there's a much simpler explanation: It's sharper because it's more heavily sharpened. The artifacts it exhibits on high-frequency content are a dead giveaway for anybody skilled in the art, as the reviewer pointed out.

The A6500 would never be in my bag, IT OVER HEATS BIG TIME! Can't have a camera like that no matter how sharp it is! Plus, the GH5 has No overheating and No Time Limits! The GH5 will be a huge success for Panasonic and the Video Industry!

I have a Panasonic DVX200 Camera that is also M4/3 and shoots fantastic video, so the GH5 will be a great second camera to have with many of Panasonics other video cameras.

Perhaps, IQ is certainly [very] important. Getting paid is also important. The GH4/5 do make it easy to complete gigs and bill the client. To be fair the a6500 does not shoot raw video either.

I have a 6300 which I enjoy and don't see a compelling reason to "upgrade" to the 6500, by the way. If I was buying again fresh, then I would probably opt for the 6500.

On one hand, the a6300 overheats, has a short battery life, terrible rolling shutter and only shoots 29 minutes continuous. Furthermore, some may consider the controls "fiddly." On the other hand, the 6300 does low light quite well, is cheaper, has terrific image quality when properly stabilized and has nice gamma controls.

The GH5 does compromise with a smaller sensor and seemingly less overall sharpness. However, she does throw in a lot of other goodies. Again, I would like to have both. If I was a strict photographer with occasional forays into video, then I would definitely push the a6x00s.

A6500 can not shoot continuous video for long periods of time. For that reason I chose Panasonic. I need to shoot uninterrupted takes often for over an hour and always over 29:59 or overheating whichever comes first.

Then turn up the overheating protection temp to high on the A6500. Even my A6300 can nearly fill a 64GB card (ran out of space at 47min) with 4K24 100p S-Log2 continuously. Only a handful of these cameras overheat (and should have been exchanged for a properly working body). Been covered in the forums already.

This camera has captured my interest. It has good specs for the price. It is a good "compromise" camera. If you want an all in one type video + photo camera, this is one of the top choices out there.

However, if you are buying it for mostly video there are better options - a Blackmagic URSA (full size) is more production ready at near the same price. I just bought another BM (big URSA) for $2k on CL. If you need higher ISO and shoot at 1080p, the Sony F3 is also in the same price point(with 444 sLOG). Either of the above cameras are better than this for video ONLY.

On the other hand, if you are mostly a "photography person," a used Nikon D4 (or its Canon equivalent) will provide better ergonomics, options, familiarity near this camera's price point.

That being said, on paper absolutely interesting camera! For those that can live with the compromise, or the advanced hobbyist, this camera checks off a lot of boxes. For the price point, no one should be complaining!

doni, those are both great cameras. Congratulations on picking up the URSA! One advantage the GH5 still has (and one of the reasons I've used GH cameras for quite a few projects) is size. You get a lot in a small package, which is important if you're traveling light, working in the backcountry, etc. But I appreciate your point.

@FLruckas - it is dead once it is no longer used. I just used a Sony F3 (a camera long discountinued and much older than the URSA) for a project. For a 1080p output, it is the closest image you can get to film or an Arri Alexa.

Same goes for the URSA (or any camera). It is alive until it stops working. My D4 did not die when the D5 came out =)

But point well taken - the mini pro is great! No question, but for the purpose of comparison, not near the pricepoint of the GH5

@dale baskin - I shoot with a DSLR too (5DMk II and III). Once fully rigged for a production, it is close to the size and weight of most other production cameras (except the URSA which is about 25-30lbs fully rigged).

The small package is sometimes useful - as you said in travelling and working in back country - but for the most part cumbersome in my experience. With limited HDMI connections (and no SDI) the field monitor usually goes to the 1st AC with the DP and director / producer sharing the rear LCD (no video village).

That being said, I pack light for my travels and do not carry anything more than an unrigged DSLR, so I understand your point and the benefits =)

"For stills shooters (..) there are arguably more better options out there"What might those be? I have high hopes for the improved autofocus.An thoughts on those options?I am looking for a new body / system.

Well I have EM1markII. IQ is sure similar and very good, its C-AF might be better. But its EVF is worse and its menusystem is so different that it can well spoil the whole experience. HiRes is in a league of its own well mostly together with 50MP MF IQ but not that consistent of course. But if you do not need HiRes I'd rate the GH5 higher because it has far more controls directly available on the cam. Em1.2 is to my mind a myriad of all sorts of functions with weird icons.Panasonic gets you a good guide with the cam, I got NOTHING with my Em1.2. Just download it. Panasonics guide is incomplete, there is a 360 page one (versus 200 pages I think) online. Again: if people do not care for HiRes I think I would tell them to buy the GH5 for stills. not Em1.2.

The E-M1 II has an 80MP high-res mode option for tripod users, does 60fps in RAW rather than JPEG (18 fps with C-AF), and should generally have more reliable continuous autofocus due to its phase-detect AF pixels. It also has the best IBIS system on the market right now.

It's kind of a matter of priorities, they're both very good cameras. Some might prefer the ergonomics of one or the other. But in general I'd say that if you're shooting sports, wildlife, or other fast action, or tripod-bound landscape or product photography, the Olympus is probably the preferable option. If you're shooting professional video, go for the GH5. If you don't do either, flip a coin or just go and handle both and see which one you prefer.

Would be interesting to see a test comparing the Olympus and Panasonic IBIS systems side-by-side. I think Panasonic has caught up for the most part. There are probably nuances of difference (one doing better here and the other there), but overall, I think you could say the IBIS systems are comparable (in terms of results) now.

Are they comparable when using primes and ultra wide zooms sans OIS or only when using OIS lenses for Dual IS on Panasonic bodies? That's the biggest question, with Dual IS they were already comparable a year ago on the GX8 (except it didn't enable IBIS for video, main reason I passed on it, that and no EFC).

In addition to the features listed above, Oly has other niche/specialty features that cater to those leaning more towards stills... Such as Live Time and Live Composite. Personally I think Oly's high end burst modes are also more appealing (if a little harder to use) than Pana's 6K Photo and lens limited-DFD capabilities.

6 of one and half a dozen of the other tho, if you bother to do some research or read some of the more expensive reviews (not a dig at DPR, but they don't retread over old features as much as say, Cameralabs) you'll see there's still plenty to differentiate either's offerings, let alone vs Fuji/Sony.

pdelux: yes the ISO64 is super clean! Super! But you lose dynamic range and it is really visible so that is a downside because from what I gathered the GH5 does not get worse DR at its extended ISO....IBIS....hmmm...one stop. Yes well. HiRes like I said is indeed beyond the scope of even the FF out there...IF it is usable. I have to add that DFD worked well with my OLy lense. Well just one I admit but the 45 mm f1.8 is still quite testing since it gets you really shallow DOF and DFD on the GH4 with this lens does a good job.

The control on the cam of the Panasonic to my mind are so nice that it makes shooting a lot easier. No menudiving and logical. Better EVF. better s-af (but Em1.2 is good as well). All in all there is not so much in it, not clear cut and more your personal preference. I am in love with HiRes so for me it is the Oly. For others it is Panny and for good reasons, not fanboyism.

GH5 gets a noticeably better value rating than Fujifilm XT2 yet is $400 more. I think perhaps too much weighting has been given to the video side of the review although I appreciate it seems to have great video performance.

It's kind of a question of use case, really. For the most part, if you wanted to, you can compare the X-T2's primary capabilities to an $1100 D7200.

But if video matters to you, you ultimately need to compare the GH5 to a Blackmagic Ursa Mini, Sony FS5, or at least an A7s II, all of which are in the $3000-6000 range. So if you are purchasing it for video, then the value proposition on the GH5 really outshadows everything else with the possible exception of the A6500.

"need to compare"? lets not overstate the value of this gh5... the a7sii is much better in low light, and the fs5/ursa mini are dedicated video cameras that have far better ergonomics for shooting video than either of those cameras do... with the ursa mini for example, you can use b4/ef/pl lenses, have lan-c control, and with e-mount you have the sony 28-135 and those new fuji parfocal video lenses, none of which are available in an mft mount.

All true. Though I question whether low light performance is even relevant for videographers with any kind of professional aspiration. If you can scrape together $5000 for an A7s II and lenses but can't get a couple of lights and stands, you're doing it wrong.

So you say 4992 x 3744 is the resolution in 6K photo mode which is a 4:3 aspect ratio crop of the total sensor of roughly 1.04x (2.08x relative to FF). Total MP is 18.7MP which is I guess why they call it 6K because 16:9 6K is also 18.7MP.

I guess I just answered my own question but perhaps it would be good to indicate that when describing the 6K photo mode?

"6K photo mode is a 4:3 native aspect ratio 1.04x crop of the sensor that gives the same 18.7MP resolution of 6K 16:9. Unlike the 5760x3240 you'd expect as '6K', it's a taller and less wide 4992 x 3744."

That would seem better than 6000x3000... not sure where those numbers came from other than it starts with a 6.

Marketing nonsense if you ask me. I really dislike it. Before we knew the specs of this so called 6K quite a few on the mFT forum including myself seriously detested this outcome which seems possible but also not something Panasonic is known for. But they did...Yuck!

Ehh... In the end it's an effective way of marketing the feature for the people that'll really end up using it, I think outside of slow moving subjects (for which you don't need 30fps anyway) most enthusiasts will end up using conventional bursts modes anyway, specially on the GH5.

4K/6K Photo still has it's fans, specially on lower end bodies with more limited conventional burst modes. The biggest caveat isn't even really the res or that it's JPEG only, the biggest caveat should be the potential for rolling shutter distortion.

Native ISO is 200. ISO 100 is an "expanded" ISO. Basically, the camera overexposes the image and brings the exposure back down before writing the file. All you're doing by using that is making the image brighter at the expense of potentially clipping highlights. You can do the same by shooting ISO 200 and either opening the aperture or slowing the shutter speed by 1 stop. ISO 200 will always have the cleanest image with the most DR available.

I was talking to a Panasonic guy at a launch event for the GH5 and I pointed out that the grip was so large that it could indeed carry two batteries.With the lower battery life and all.....Maybe the tripod mount would be in the way?

Reviews from DPR normally have a section dedicated to compare with competitors. For example, the IBIS is good, but how it compare to Olympus EM1 II? A video test with both mounted on the same frame will demo easily. Or did I miss something?

There are certainly additional things we would like to have included in the review. The GH5 presented us with so many things to test (especially on the video side, which usually takes longer than stills) that we had to strike a balance between how many additional tests/comparisons we could run and actually getting the review published.

Perhaps we can do some short follow-up articles to address some of those 'other' things.

The IQ from D7200 seems to be better even at higher ISOs. And E-M10 II will be competitive at least until ISO 3200. So, these (much cheaper) cameras are of the same level, maybe excl. video properties. If you don't shoot videos, this camera is not worth of it's price.

And the D7200 has a sensor that's more than two times the area of a 4/3 sensor, but the Nikon only has four more MPs, therefore...

Also the D7200 shoots 14 bit raws--this contributes to better image quality from the Nikon, though not noise control so much.

"much cheaper", is this sarcasm?

I'm glad you acknowledge this Panasonic is a [much, much] better video camera than the Nikon. But the better video is hardly the only reason to select this system. And I like the Nikon D7200, D5600, etc.

vesa1tahti: You're so desperate in bashing the GH5! It is clear that the GH5 is a video-centric 20MP MFT camera. Read the review's conclusion: "If you're primarily a stills shooter, the GH5 would make a fine choice if you're looking at the Four Thirds ecosystem, but there are arguably better options out there for the money. . . . If you're serious about video, it's hard to go wrong."

Eh no...D7200 is better. It is the best APS-c sensor so yes it will be better than the best current mFT sensor although if EM1.2 is a good proxy the differences are almost always insignificantly small. Base ISO DR being a big exception. I own EM1.2, GH4, EPl5 etc...The IQ out of EM1.2 in RAW is significantly better than the others and that for sure includes EM10/II. Plus you forget that AF for action and static subjects of the Gh5 just walks allover the EM10-II. Then you have better batterylife, better ergonomics, better EVF by far etcetc. The Gh5 is a very good stills cam. It is just one of the best hybrids ever made.

I think, well know, most would say that the new Sony APSC 24MP sensor (used in the Pentax KM, Fuji XT2, and Sony A6500) and the APSC sensor in the Nikon D500 are both better sensors than that sensor in the D7200.

Well compare them in DXO which seems still the most objective....XT2 is unknown. But we can look at mirrorless comparisons and see how close it is. worse in DR than Em1.2 but from ISO6400 onwards better at noise. Andthey used no less than three convertors for Fuji to test it and in fact own the cam...(XI2).

HAR: mirrorless comparisons does very extensive tests and directly compared Em1.2 vs XT2 and there is nothing in it. So it is not only DxO. MC did the most extensive test on these cams I have ever seen.

I've tried both the EM1 II and the XT2. I have at least 100 raws shot in very difficult light; the Fuji XT2 is a much better higher ISO body than the Olympus EM1 II. I'm quite sure of my results. (Yes, I know the rumors about Fuji lying about ISO settings, and I'm taking those into account.)

Now, despite likely using the same sensor, the Panasonic GH5 is a bit better higher ISO body than the Olympus--may have something to do with the raws from the Panasonic being 10-15% bigger than those from the Olympus. Of course neither the Oly or Panasonic shoots 14 bit raws, unlike the Fuji.

“Panasonic told us that one of the most common requests from users was a more precise, natural color palette...” Yet, compared to GH-4, in GH-5, “[t]he visible difference as far as skin tones … isn't always easily apparent.”

What gives? And can we please have more elaboration on the subject?

Can DPR please have more of its great tests/footage made to compare the skin tones under different lighting, straight out of the camera, and with LUTs applied?

As it stands, there is more written in the review about how GH-5 renders the appearance of power lines than how it renders skin tones. “I’ve got a call from the power line complaining about how it looked in my video”—said no videographer ever.[Given that there is usually a Cap Obvious on every board with a proclivity to educate others, please do not explain to me why the power lines were included in the review--I get it]

Yeah exposure compensation in addition to auto ISO is definitely new, at least they're iterating somewhat quickly on this after missing the boat for so many years... AND making the same changes across their entire lineup, not arbitrarily keeping this kinda thing as a high end feature. It's a shame they aren't as proactive as others about retroactively updating older models tho.

A bias setting so one can rely on the excellent IBIS would really take this over the top for me... I don't think Oly has added that on any body either, they had auto ISO in manual years before Panasonic but didn't bother adding exposure compensation to the equation until the somewhat recent PEN-F... I'd kill for an update to add it to my E-M5 II, it certainly has enough dials/toggles.

I am really surprised at the poor rating by the reviewer for the movie/video performance. He think there are many camera in the market which would do better. This finding is inconsistent with the article.

Presumably your AF tests were done with the new edition lenses. Can you give us any sense of how the AF performs with older glass? It's a rather expensive upgrade to replace the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 lenses for their new "II" versions.

I enjoyed reading your review but I have to disagree in regards to image processing: I consider the GH5 JPG engine the best out there, much better in fact compared with the rest of the cameras.I'm not implying the GH5 has the best image quality, but relative to it's RAW quality, the JPG's look fantastic and much better than the competition for the same RAW noise characteristics.

Sorry but I disagree. Having had Olympus in various forms like E-M5, E-M1mk1 and E-M1mk2(currently) but also a Panasonic G2, GM1( both sold), and currently also owning the GM5 and G80 I can safely say the Olympus engine is the best still. Olympus also have better control over the jpeg quality settings, compared to that the Panasonics are simplistic.The results are that current Panasonic camera's have increased a lot since I owned the G2 and are better than GM5, but they still can't hold a candle to the output of the Olympus camera's.

eno2, that is one of the oldest arguments in this forum.It is incredibly easy to find pictures that support both sides of a "noise" argument. Meanwhile anyone who cares about photography ignores that silliness and focuses on if they can get the "Content" the want with the camera.

This seems so personal. I have GH4 and Em1.2. I do like the JPGs of the GH4 a lot and do not find them lacking because of the engine at all. In RAW it simply becomes clear that the Em1.2 sensor is visibly better than the GH4 one. I am not at all surprised people rate the GH5 JPGs higher than Olympus with presumably the same sensor in use. I also have EPl5 and I personally rate the Gh4 output better. In RAW for sure but also in JPG. The sensor seems to be a little better than the EPl5 one based on RAW but it is not much. The step up from GH4 to Em1.2 in RAw is more noticable. Only from what I read in this review it seems like GH5 is a little better than EM1.2 in RAW although it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.

I am sure it is a very similar sensor to the E-M1.2. The E-M1.2 has the PDAF pixel overlay and somehow has a faster sensor readout. For example, the GH5 is 15ms, compared to 10.5ms on the E-M1.2. The GH4 was 22ms and several of the Sonys are about 30ms. It could be that improved speed is not related to the actual sensor. Maybe someone else will chime in.

Huh, I didn't know the E-M1 II halved it's readout speed, that's pretty impressive, for a while there wasn't much progress in that regard. Why does it always take some enterprising user on the boards to figure out that kinda stuff?

I hoped for a real step forward for the viewfinder...it is a lot better then GH3 and GH4but...it is not as bright and as sharp that I wished for, it has more resolution, but it doesn't show as bright and clear as my Fujifilm X-T2 or Olympus E-M1IIand...it is strongly effected by sunshine or light from the side...

What Panasonic engineered best, is the AF-selector! Far better then Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm etc.It is unfair, that the IBIS doesn't work with Olympus-lenses.

This is the first dissenting opinion I have heard on the GH5's viewfinder. The only feedback I've heard so far is that it is second only to the Leica SL's EVF, so it is interesting to hear that you don't like it.

IBIS works fine with Olympus lenses, only Dual IS and Dual IS/2 don't work.Have 45mm F1.8, which is fine but also the standard kit 12-50mm is fine with the Pana IBIS, at least s good as the original E-M5 with 5-axis IS.

Well that seems odd. I have the EM1.2 and its EVF has one advantage over GH4 and that is that it responds a lot faster. But that is it. The GH4 EVF looks a bit better and it has much more room to adjust. The Oly seems to have a greenish cast which I personally do not mind or even see but when pointed to it yes it seems to be there. So I would say that in line with not only these reviewers the GH5 EVF, bar fast tracking shooting, is the best EVF out there. May be with the exception of the Leica.

it has the highest resolution but if you work with the cameras, either the Leica SL (is too greenish and has no natural colors) nor the Panasonic GH5 can stand against Fujifilm X-T2 or Olympus E-M1II.The resolution benefit is to small - only big numbers.And the viewfinders are definitiv slower.And it looks a bit dusky and not so brilliant - and it has a real problem with side-light and back-light.I use X-T2 or Nikon D500 or Oly E-M1II parallel on workshops - and most people don't like the GH5 viewfinder either.It is hard to describe - you have to look through them and compare under the same light - and not in room.I am not satisfied with the GH5 viewfinder - it stays an achilles heel at Panasonic.

thx for posting the sample footage of that focus transition function, it's very interesting... not sure that sony or canon have that same functionality.

didn't see any mention of any parfocal zooms in the m4/3 lineup? did i miss it in the article? pretty hard to take the g5 seriously, as a video camera, if panasonic can't make a real video lens for it... even canon has gotten on the bandwagon with their $5.3k cn-e video zoom, although it's for crop sensors.

Most of those parfocal cine zooms are manual focus and manual zoom (geared), anyway. So because this is a short flange mirrorless camera, there's really zero disadvantage in just using a dumb adapter. For the Canon video zooms that are electronic servo-enabled, you can simply use an electronic pass-through adapter, even one with a focal reducer like a Metabones Speedbooster.

I agree that it is surprising that Panasonic does not have a cine-specific lens line-up. There are a lots of non-zoom cine lenses designed specifically for M4/3. The Veydra primes are a good example. But no zooms.

I would agree that Sony's CAF is still much better. The GH5's looks to be generally workable, but you probably need to spend a fair bit of time working out exactly the right settings that will alleviate the jumpiness.

It may also be that for most situations the best bet is simply to use S-AF and touch refocus as needed to avoid any hunting.

Or, where possible, in controlled situations, the automated focus pull will give transitions that are as good as any option on the market (including a dedicated focus puller and cine lenses...)

It is the only thing that favours A6500. Everything else when it comes to video heavily favours GH5 of course. Not to mention overheating. Still IQ is close but a6500 is probably a bit better. I will await DxOmark to or mirrorless comparison which do extensive IQ tests. Btw: AF of the panasonic still is very good. S-AF is next to none and works in extremely low light and fast. My GH4 does, better than my EM1.2 and probably worse than the GH5.

Max's review was hasty, and he did nothing to tweak the AF settings... AT ALL. Heck, even Northrup finds the AF in the GH5 respectable, but that is because he actually played with the various AF settings. From what it looks like, the GH5's C-AF is actually really good as long as you pick the focus points--if you let the camera pick it, it starts to get squirrelly. Its not A6500 level, but its more than usable for run-and-gun documentary style footage, just don't rely on it to track everything.

Also check out Ken Ross and PierreTL's videos on the GH5. They seem to have none of the autofocus problems from Max's tests. I'm sure a lot more footage will come out as well as people use theirs in real world scenarios. I can't seem to make my GH5 do what Max's was doing. It's possible there was some lens difference or he had a bad camera, or maybe he just didn't understand the settings and did things weirdly. Panasonic didn't provide much in the way of good descriptors for the settings or a lot of information in the manual, so I can understand why some people might be confused. Regardless, based on my own tests, and what I've seen other people do with their GH5, I think anyone who doesn't buy one based on one internet critic's video is crazy.

You could easily make a movie with an $80,000 studio camera that looked worse than a well-shot, well-lit movie with a GH5. But the opposite is also true.

The pixel peeping details are not what are going to define a great movie. This is true of stills, but doubly true of video, since the temporal and audio aspects add infinitely more complexity to the imaging.

In the end, the obvious answer is that no, the GH5 cannot compare with an Arri or a RED. But realistically, if you're seriously asking the question, the implication is that probably the GH5 will actually give you better results due to its more consumer-friendly feature-set.

I know of at least one Hollywood film about to be shot entirely on the GH5. Actually it may already be underway. It's not going to be a super high budget blockbuster or anything, but the camera is good enough for them. I think when the 400Mbps codec comes out this summer it'll be a very big deal in the professional filmmaking industry.

I remember hearing about movies being shot at least partially with the GH2, and the GH5 is leaps and bounds ahead of that in IQ and professional filmmaking features. Now, obviously when you pay for a $80,000 camera, you're getting features that a $2,000 camera can't match. If you don't already know what those are, I'm sure the GH5 will suit your needs just fine.

As long as one know what they were doing it shouldn't look worse unless the shots they were trying to get really push the GH5 to its limits (super slow mo, extreme DR shots, very low light).

Those five figure studio cameras cost so much because they flexibility they offer professionals along with their ability to be customized. At the end of the day the GH5 is not a purpose built video camera like an ARRI or RED is. It's a hybrid camera with an emphasis on video.

I think the killer feature for the GH6 is going to be 4K VFR footage up to 180 fps. The GH5 does up to 180 fps at 1080p which is crazy. Maybe we'll see 6K 30p as well. 8K seems like a stretch and I'm not sure there's any industry demand for it.

I only have one question & one only: does ANYONE, I mean ANYONE, actually buy this camera to use it primarily as a still camera? The answer is most likely no. There is 0, zilch, compelling or outstanding reasons for its price to anywhere be justifiable over other still cameras. So, being the case that basically everyone will use this for video, WHAT IS THE POINT TO KEEP MAKING THIS CAMERA'S FORM FACTOR A STILL CAMERA, instead of simply just making it actually what 99.99.99% of people will use it for: A VIDEO CAMERA! Market it as a mini-RED or a mini-VARICAM or something else that is hip and catchy and "cinema-sounding" that works sales-wise! Done! It is truly a mystery to me that Panasonic keeps year on year making this as a still camera when just about no one uses it as as such & later have to turn it upside down, inside-out & do endless gymnastics with adaptors, cages, grips, all sorts of gadgetry & whatever else to remotely turn this more into something like a video camera!!!

A lot of people are into both video and photo. The Gh5 is perfect for both use cases. While I'm sure that an AF-101 successor would be welcome, the bulk and ergonomics of a production cam would kill it for photo use.

Some photographers, doing mainly pack shots may use it as with a MFT sensor we have more depth of field. Probably because its video features compared to its competitors, the marketing is mostly orientated towards video. This camera has its potentials, but to me the colour science of pana, mainly with skin tones, is still behind some of its competitors.

I love the form factor. For portability, not drawing any attention and all-round usability. Like Boissez said, I use it for both photos and video (just as an enthusiast) so it works as a perfect hybrid cam with controls I'm used to. I'm especially excited about the new 6k photo mode, as I have tons of great pictures from the 4K photo mode on the GH4. Especially now with the IBIS, I think I'll be able to get great handheld video with no need for any extra accessories.

The images captured in 6K photo mode are terrific, especially high-speed action shots, such as golf and baseball swings, and any other sport where there's a lot of body movement.

The stills in photo mode are also stunningly good, and this camera, IMHO is the best thing out there right now if you enjoy taking pristine show it to everyone on an OLED QHD tablet or PC 4K 60p non-juddering video. The Dual2 IBIS is outstanding in that regard, also.

Weird argument. Because (you say) no one is likely to use it 100% as a stills camera, you believe that instead it should be designed 100% as a video camera?

What about all the people who would be taking 70% stills and 30% video? Or 50/50?

Not to mention, it's still an extremely good stills camera. If you are primarily shooting below ISO 1600, you're not going to be able to find much difference in image quality between it and its APS-C competition, and it has the best viewfinder on the market shy of the Leica SL, very good IBIS, and exceptional build, durability, ergonomics, and user interface. If you're already in the M4/3 system, it's certainly a much better "100% stills" option than switching to Fuji or Sony, given the marginal quality differences, especially if you're already familiar with Panasonic's way of doing things. Which is very intuitive.

Well, there is analogy at Sony - both A7s and FS5 (with its almost double price). I wouldn't be angry if next videocamera from Panasonic would have same features like GH5 - even for higher price. Are you listening, Panasonic? And regarding stills quality - I like the output of GH5, but it has all the limits of MFT. I can imagine many photographers switching with pleasure to GH5 - from 1" sensor cameras, older MFT or APSC cameras. But rarely from FF. For close shots the detail rendering is OK, but for distant details (architecture, for example) it doesn't work.

I like the GH-series and use it mostly for stills. I like the controls and the UI better than any other camera. In terms of form and function it's perfect, and it's probably the most "feature complete" camera on the market. In terms of IQ it gets you to about 90% of what FF can do. That's good enough for me, especially since I don't do print.

Panasonic actually makes a 4/3-type sensor professional video camera, the DVX200, that's analogous to the GH5 but which has a video camera form factor. It shares most of the same key specs. The biggest difference - and it's a big one - is that it's a fixed lens model.

Count me as one. I own a Pentax 645z and K1, along with a GH4. I often take the GH4 and leave the other two at home when I know I may be shooting stills and video. Even the GH4 with a m4/3 16 meg sensor can deliver a money shot.

The question is: will anyone ANYONE buy this camera when he is serious about photo and video. And the answer for sure is YES. I did so with the GH4 which in its time had much of the same critique and focus on video. Because what people are forgetting is that this IQ is in reality as good as current good APS-c. You have a better EVF, you have excellent stabilisation, you have very good AF, you have very good (for mirrorless) batterylife, you have great ergonomics, great and lots of lenses and they just keep coming.

If you are a serious hybrid shooter this cam could and may be should be high on your list.

Utphoto: I had the same experience. Had the D800E and the GH4 with me and shot more stills by far with the GH4 than with the D800E and was not disappointed at all. D800E is better, for sure, but not that much better. GH4 and now it seems GH5 are underestimated for stills simply because they are so good at video.

Photo_RB: that seems to be the current situation. You can see that at DxO but also you can see that in the reviews of mirrorless comparison which do extensive reviews and rate DR of the EM1.2 BETTER than XT2. Now for sure: if both sensor use the very same technology the APS-c will be 2/3 of a stop better throughout the range. But currently it is not the case it seems. @ androole; take a look at DxO and you see there is no significant difference and in fact Canon is behind Em1.2 but also not significanlty.The difference has never been so small ever. When we started in 2008 G1 was WAY behind D90. I mean 52 points versus 73. Then with Em5 the gap reduced to 11 points (72 vs 83). And now it is 80 vs 87 and it is even so that this 87 score is now solely based on the base ISO difference in DR with D7200. The difference throughout the range for noise, colour sensitivity and tonal range are near zero, DR; notably better on D7200 to ISO800 where it is near zero again....

It's two cameras in one rather small body that uses rather small lenses. I originally got into m43 and Panasonic cameras because of video and it renewed my love of still photography as well. I have the GH5 and a lot of the stills features on it are arguably only possible because it was designed to be such a good video camera. The post-focus and in-camera focus stacking, for example. 6K photo mode is basically just video. I imagine the dual SD slots were a feature driven by video but make it an even better stills camera as well. The ergonomics are best in the format for stills shooters, too. Can you get comparable IQ in other bodies, even cheaper bodies? Sure. But there's more to photography than just IQ.

Replying to the initial question:1. Why have only one, when you can have 2 in 1.2. Ergonomics wise, RED and Canon started the trend a while back. I use the C100 Mk II, and feels like a bigger version of a Hasselblad.

The 5D MKII and 7D brought a turning point to the image industry. From travel documentaries to music videos, a new era of hybrids was born.

The rule of demand forges the supply. Who will buy a phone that does not have a camera nowadays?

the only person I know of who uses a camera to only shoot stills, is my father, who celebrated his 50th anniversary of photography last year.

We agree. It's interesting to see two manufacturers move in opposite directions: Panasonic adds an index page for its custom settings menu, making it easier to find the setting you're after, Olympus does the opposite, removing the index and one of the visual cues.

Agreed. I was hoping that it would be before the delivery date, so I could make a final decision whether to accept delivery or go for a full frame Sony variant. I have just traded in my GH4 and now am settling down to relearning the menu of the GH5. Hope to get out and take some shots this weekend. Pondering why the last part of the review has been delayed ? However, a number of European reviews have been over 90%. Lets see.

GH5 - The AF testing done with Very High Contrast Black & White bike shirt with sun shinning on the target area.

A99II - Low contrast face with brown hair and brownish glasses and face shaded by helmet and done on a cloudy/overcast/late afternoon day. Additionally, the A99II target area appears to be much smaller vs GH5

Just looking over the reviews and the comment section (A99II) - the editors were very defensive when readers disputed their findings.

hmmmm... this site has demonstrated that crop factor MUST be accounted for in aperture equivalency, yet a lot of people in the comments still compare the "weight" of the panasonic's "f/2.8" lens to full frame ones........

love the GH5; getting one!! but just felt that point should brought up for the sake of comparison accuracy.

Agree - I also have the GH5 on pre-order and don't know why some people continue to equate a M4/3 F2.8 lens to a Full Frame F2.8. For the basic math to work, equivalency must be applied to aperture AND focal length -

2.8 is 2.8 no matter the system. The problem we have is people or some review sites such as DPReview try to make the field of view the same when it is not. That is where the problem lies, not the aperture. If we truly wanted to make it equal on comparison we wouldn't try to make the field of view the same on the charts.

It would be nice if the 60% tracking shot "hit rate" observed with the bike could be compared to that obtained with, say, a 7d with dual pixel autofocus and STM lens, obtained in the same setting, lighting, bike, and shirt. In addition, there could have been a tandem test of AF in 4k video, both in the "normal" mode and the one optimized to extract stills.

Maybe Panasonic has a UI problem. The bike test settings look like they are exactly the same wrong settings Photo Joe used on Youtube because of misunderstanding the descriptions. For that type of shooting, Panasonic recommends the camera should be set -2, -2, 0 per this video (which clears things up quite a bit): https://youtu.be/6PyqWrztPkc

Possibly the results are better +2,+2,+2. On my older GX8 I find AFF works better than AFC for my purposes. Whatever works best!

Sorry, not sure why I didn't get a notification you replied. Just saw your comment when I logged in today.

It is confusing isn't it? I would have interpreted same as you and Joe. After listening to the Panasonic guy, I see his side too. AF on this camera is a bit of a hornets nest at the moment isn't it?

If you do have Panny's ear, I'd be interested in hearing why AFF is so much faster than AFC on stills (assuming it is still the same on the GH5). I shoot hockey games and the difference is like shooting with 2 different cameras. It's counter-intuitive just like the GH5 settings. Maybe I misunderstand their descriptions on this too.

Can you record to an external recorder (10 bit mode) and still control the camera remotely? Would like to know what happens in this situation on the GH5:1. Turn on the HDMI 4:2:2 in the REC menu and set to 10 bit (GH4 has 8 or 10 bit choices). 2. Plug in an HDMI cable and make it live (an Atomos, and turn it). 3. Try and turn WiFi on now, to control the camera thru your iPad (Smart device). The GH4 will not allow the WiFi to activate with a live external microHDMI cable and a 10bit setting. WiFi will not turn on in that case.

I just tried that and it works for me (GH4, Ninja Assassin), provided I connected the WiFi link before the recorder. I could start and stop recording from my phone (with a tiny bit of lag). The phone and the Atomos both showed the live view.(1) Enable 10-bit out(2) Enable HDMI control (already enabled on recorder)(3) Turn on WiFi(4) Connect via Phone WiFi then App.(5) Plus in HDMI lead(6) Turn on recorder.(7) Start recording from phoneetc.

Got excited and went to try it immediately :) The GH4 camera reverts back to an 8 bit feed when I check the menu and the 10 bit is grayed out. I have the Atomos Flame, wonder if that makes a difference. But I did get a 4K feed and WiFi using your way.

Now the subject tracking tests have been done it may be useful to actually see a comparative test - how does it measure up against a range of similarly priced/positioned cameras? I'd expect it to be trounced by the D500, which I read as somewhere not far short of the near uncanny D5, but perhaps that isn't a fair comparison [as that seems to be primarily the aim of that particular camera]. It would be interesting to see how it fares against other small mirror less shooters including the EM1ii, the xt2 and the Sony A6500.

I have an EM1.2 did shoot birds in flight, fast and very eratic, got away with good shots but it missed here and there too. But I have to play with the settings of this cam too.I think 85% ratio's are tough to beat for the EM1.2 and think that is a very very solid performance. The very good thing about this is that DFD is CD based. It works superfast in utralow light too, at least my GH4 did. At least over my Oly which is good, but not that good, I suspect GH5 will trounce it making it a more reliable faster overall AF camera. Not going to give up on my Oly at all. It's excellent offers me things important to me that Panny currently doesn't offer. Like the GH4 still too btw. Their analyses f the IQ of the GH4 compared to GH5 is exactly what I wrote/noted on the difference with my EM1.2. But EM1.2 is also clearly better in noise a low ISO's too. In fact ISO64 (extended) is buttery smooth...My GH4, which I liked a lot at ISO100 too vs ISO200, is really good but not that good though...

Chris, i don't think the comparison against the D500 is unfair. the price is similar (actually the nikkor 200-500/5.6 is about $400 cheaper than the pana-leica), features are similar, the D500 video set is pretty good as well.. the size is not an advantage on either side...

You lost it with your 4K comparison. The difference is night and day. 4kK alone doesn't cut it anymore nowadays surely not when compared to the GH5.Double standards I feel here too: so you do mention a Nikon lens on one hand (400 dollar less) but when it is about weight apparantly we only need a body.

That combination, D500 + 200-500 mm F5.6 sets you back...860 gram for the body and 2300 gram for the lens: that is 3160 gram or 3,16 Kg.

The Panasonic: 725 gram + 990 gram...That is 1.72 Kg. That is 1,5 Kg. It weighs almost half the Nikon combination.

Now if 1700 dollar or 1300 dollar ( a reduction) of 25% is significant (which it is) to my mind. Than surely a 45% reduction in weight is significant too.

Yes, the weight reduction is more significant than the price one. But for me both are ...in the same ballpark.The panasonic is already heavy... you get tired quickly of holding 1.7kg on your eye level. 3+Kg, even more.... it's more likely to stick to a tripod/monopod and raise it only occasionally .. but in the end they are both big. And the difference in performance might be more important in choosing one or another. At this point i think any "video first" guy will choose the G5 and any "photo first" will chose the D500. I really fail to see the contest :)

Yeah good, fair points, but I think you need to view it in terms of a complete ecosystem. So if you're using multiple cameras with MFT you have the option of something MUCH lighter/more discrete for when that's necessary, or else something like the GH5 which is more ergonomic/more of a workhorse [still of course offering much less weight if you're toting a few lenses including longer telephoto].

But I also think you're right in flagging that the price similarities do invite comparisons and if you were talking about having just one camera, the D500 from looking ridiculously expensive on release, now looks competitive. I had a D300 back when that was a new camera and was delighted with it and still like Nikon's ergonomics, so I've no axe to grind in terms of brand loyalty. All these things have different strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately I'm not rich enough to mix and match systems...

@ JorginhoThanks for the comments - I was actually a bit dismayed [still am] by the price of the EM1ii [I own its predecessor]. I'm quite surprised and perhaps a little pleased you think the GH5 might beat the Oly for tracking, but a bit concerned it may not match it for noise handling [although I rather suspect we're talking fractions of a stop difference] since the EM1ii under performs slightly from what you might expect in terms of sensor size alone [at least according to DPR's tests, which I generally trust].

It's not that I particularly need fast and accurate constant focus, it's just nice to have the capability. MFT shooters just need to swallow the noise penalty [more so with 35mm alternative], but personally for travel and day long shoots, the size/weight difference tips it for me personally. No right or wrong in this argument...

well... it was a time when i also thought that you should stick to a system. But i think that point is less relevant, however you get used to the menus of one brand, and that could be an advantage. Other than that, i think having bodies from different brands is a real advantage. Like Have the D500 with some nice quality lens, for sports, portraits (with shallow DOF, etc), and have a mirror-less for less demanding situations, with smaller lenses.I am an amateur, so i don't invest much into gear, but currently that;s exactly what i have (an older DSLR, with some rather big glass) and a OM10 II, with the kit pancake lens (and also thinking about a 17-20mm brighter prime) for casual shooting

I suppose having said what I have, I do still possess two systems in that I still have my 5DII and a few lenses [and the differences you talk about in terms of noise and DoF are far more significant with a much larger sensor]. I ditched the APSc bodies I had a long time ago because the difference was not so great. I find I now take the 5DII out very rarely [I have some fast primes for shallower DoF and increased light gathering, but it's not a complete solution] and of course the difference in noise handling diminishes when comparing cameras of different vintage.

More about gear in this article

Panasonic's latest firmware update for its GH5S, GH5 and G9 series of cameras was leaked in Japan earlier today and is now being officially announced a week early. But don't get too excited – you still won't be able to download it until May 30th.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, Japan, we talked in-depth with Panasonic about the company's new Lumix G9 and GH5S cameras and its increased emphasis on stills capture as well as high-quality 4K video.

Ahh, April: the beginning of Spring. The sun starts to come out after a long winter, flowers are blooming and bears come out of hibernation. April was a pretty busy month in the camera industry, including some real blockbuster announcements.

As 2017 draws to a close, we're looking back at major product launches and events of the last 12 months. Today, we're beginning at the beginning - with January. Take a look at some of that month's highlights.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.